The Men's World Cup, I believe - has now reached its optimal size at 32 teams. With more and more nations fielding women's teams, and with the unfair allocation given to UEFA teams (only 5 spots) at the present women's world cup, I think that a move towards a 32-team Women's World Cup would represent a step forward in the development of the game in 2nd-tier countries. The present set up is HOST: 1 UEFA: 5 CONCACAF: 2.5 AFC: 2.5 CAF: 2 CONMEBOL: 2 OFC: 1 I think, with 32 teams, the setup should be something along the lines of: HOST: 1 UEFA: 16 CONCACAF: 4 AFC: 4 CAF: 3 CONMEBOL: 3 OFC: 1 Let's suppose that we take this year's tournament as an example, and take China as being hosts: This could see a possible lineup of: HOST: China UEFA: Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, England, France, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Ukraine, Russia, Italy, Czech Republic, Spain, Scotland, Poland CONCACAF: USA, Canada, Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago AFC: North Korea, Australia, Japan, South Korea CAF: Nigeria, Ghana, Cameroon CONMEBOL: Brazil, Argentina, Peru OFC: New Zealand This would give teams more exposure to top quality games, and would help close the gap between the also-rans and the big teams. It would also promote a bit more competition in the qualifiers, as a lot of teams would now have a genuine chance of qualification, and it wouldn't just be the same teams qualifying year in year out.
Maybe 32 teams is a bit premature. A more natural progression will be to go to 24 teams first and see what the scores are. In any event I would give 5.5 spots to Conmebol.
Why give conmebol so many slots? Brazil, the 'best' team in the region is hardly funded. Where would the other 3.5 countries get the money to start a women's game? Espescially in such a male dominated society... 24 should be the next logical expansion, I agree. Not 32.
Yes, 32 should be the final objective. Like in the men's World Cup, we saw a gradual increase from 16 to 24 to 32. 5.5 spots to CONMEBOL? I don't think even the 3rd placed CONMEBOL team is as good as the 16th-ranked UEFA team. Ecuador and Uruguay didn't exactly cover themselves with glory at the recent pan-american games tournament. If I remember correctly, Uruguay lost 7-0 to Canada and Ecuador lost 10-0 to Brazil. Paraguay also lost 7-1 to USA's U-20 team. And these were the 3rd, 4th & 5th ranked CONMEBOL teams in the previous South American Championship. Well, with 24 teams, I think it should be as follows: HOST: 1 UEFA: 10 AFC: 3.5 CONCACAF: 3.5 CONMEBOL: 2.5 CAF: 2.5 OFC: 1
It would also be a gigantic joke, with 10-0 matches becoming commonplace. And 16 UEFA teams?! As it is now Europe is sending two teams with virtually no chance of winning the tournament. I also don't know where CONCACAF would come up with a fourth team after Mexico. Maybe if the rest of the confederation banded together they could assemble a squad that could aspire to a single-digit goal differential. The men's tournament was around for 52 years before expanding to 24 teams. I think the women's game needs more time to grow.
32 is to early, to work for 24 it ahs to be almost as UEFa-centric as mcruic suggests. As I see it Currently the Confederations have the following no of counties that would do well in WWC: UEFA: 7 AFC: 5 CONCACAF: 3 CONMEBOL: 1 CAF: 0 OFC: 0 And these numbers whoch would not embarrass themslef and wommens soccer in it (including the one that would do well): UEFA: 12 (or possible one or two more) AFC: 5 (no teams except the five big China, Japan, Australia and both Koreas) CONCACAF: 3 (no teams except the three big US,Canada and Mexico) CONMEBOL: 2 CAF: 1 OFC: 0 (Sorry New Zeeland) So I think, with 24 teams, the setup should be something along the lines of: HOST: 1 UEFA: 11 CONCACAF: 3½ AFC: 5 CAF: 1½ CONMEBOL: 2½ OFC: ½ I think that should work ok And I think, with 32 teams, the setup would not be working since it would include to many team that would be slaughtered against the top teams.
No, the bigger joke is that teams ranked 29 (Argentina) and 47 (Ghana) are taking part, while better teams ranked much higher at 16, 17, 18, 19, 20(Netherlands, Finland, Ukraine, Spain, Iceland, Czech Rep.) stay home. Competitions should first and foremost be about the very best competing. Cups designed to "develop" lower ranked teams should be reserved for invitationals or other special events. Either the world cup is about the best teams in the world, or it's not. Expanding the cup so that more of the best can actually take part is the only fair solution, 10-0 or not.
Ridiculous. It's the World Cup, not the Eurosnob Cup. There are some opposing interests at work that have to be respected. All the teams with a serious chance to win should be able to compete AND the event should include teams from all over the globe. The World Cup isn't and has never been a competition amongst the top X teams. None of the European teams sitting at home have a shot in hell of winning this tournament. They all had a chance to qualify and failed to do so. I mean seriously, Spain? Iceland? The drop-off in quality amongst women's teams is just as severe in Europe as elsewhere. I don't want to see a bunch of blow-outs in the premiere women's tournament just to make the ten Iberian women's soccer fans happy.
The real joke would be allotting places on the basis of a laughably distorted ranking instead of actual quality. I have not seen the Netherlands, Ukraine, or Spain, but I have seen the others. When I saw them, Iceland and the Czech Republic were not nearly as good as Ghana. Finland were not as good either, but the gap wasn't so large. I doubt that Iceland or the Czech Republic are even as good as the 4th best African side, let alone the 2nd best.
In four years, there will be enough quality for 24 teams. There probably is enough now, if the slots are allotted judiciously. I admit most of those teams would not have a real chance to win. I think that is the wrong standard. If that's what we wanted for the World Cup, we would invite just Germany, The United States, and Brazil. The following allotments would give us 24 competitive teams. UEFA: 10 (not much drop off in quality from Denmark and England to France, Netherlands, Russia, and Finland) AFC: 4.5 (poor quality after South Korea) CAF: 4 (Cameroon and Suth Africa competitive with Nigeria and Ghana) CONCACAF: 3 (poor quality after Mexico) CONMEBOL: 2 (very poor quality after Argentina) OFC: .5 (guaranteed place for New Zealand is a bad idea)
11 from UEFA? The other federations would never stand for it. Host: 1 UEFA: 9 CONCACAF: 3.5 AFC: 4.5 CAF: 2.5 CONMEBOL: 2.5 OFC: 1 I think that is more likely than anything. I doubt OFC will lose their spot.
If New Zeeland do as bad as I fear, loosing all their games and most of them big. I think OFC will lose the spot, but if NZ fare less bad you are right there are no way OFC will lose the spot unless New Zeeland is a real embarrassment in the WWC but I believe they will be.
New Zealand would be lucky to escape with a -12 goal differential. I wish we could switch New Zealand and Sweden in the group stages
Remember the men's went from 16 to 24 in 1982 in an effort to grow the national programs in more nations. Yes there were blowouts (remember Hungary 10 El Salvador 1), but many of the unheralded teams did well and justified the decision as by 1986 we had African nations winning groups, which many thought would never happen so soon. There are too many good (good, not great) teams not qualifying for the WWC because of the small field and it seems to be the same teams making it over and over. While those teams deserve to be there, others need the opportunity to join the world's grandest stage. Obviously I do favor expansion to 24 teams, I think it would do wonders for the long-term future of the women's game worldwide.
Not to disagree with your point or with that of JanBalk. But if N.Z. is that bad, how did they manage to qualify. What is wrong with the system if anything.
Iceland 4-1 China at the Algarve Cup?. There is nothing Eurocentric about saying that half of the best 32 teams in women's world football are European. There are other rankings out there, apart from FIFA's, that rate Netherlands et al above Ghana and New Zealand. And for your information, the 4th best African side would be South Africa or Cameroon. Iceland and the Czech Republic are easily good enough to beat these sides. At least, if you haven't seen the teams play - take the trouble to look at their results and you will see that they are not as bad as you think. Netherlands and Iceland also beat France, who are no pushovers.
New Zealand had to play 3 games to qualify, against the might of Tonga, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea. That is how they managed to qualify.
The thing wrong with the system is giving Oceania one full spot, since currently the confederation is New Zeeland and about a dozen small island nations (ok Papua New Guniea may not really be a small island nation in anything but sport, but in soccer they are small).
Well, until China takes a squad to Africa and plays the likes of Cameroon there, we won't have results to cherry-pick from under similar conditions, will we? I don't see why are you're on about Eurocentrism. I had nothing to say about it. I said it's absurd to take the FIFA ranking as a strict guide to the quality of women's teams. Since you think that only half the best 32 teams are from Europe, then you actually agree with me. After all, UEFA teams actually occupy almost 60% of the top 32 places in the FIFA ranking. In the first place, Netherlands is not Iceland or the Czech Republic, let alone Ukraine. I am willing to believe that Netherlands is quite a bit better than all of those teams. Any number of rankings are no better than one if they all share the same shortcomings. All the rankings I have seen put England far above Nigeria as well. England has played Nigeria twice in the last five years, and lost both times, 1-0 and 3-0. England had the advantage of playing at home both times. I read the BBC reports on both matches when they were played. There was no doubt that Nigeria were superior in both matches. Those aren't results that are even plausible according to the rankings. You must have seen a great deal of South Africa and Cameroon, then? I have seen Iceland. I said nothing about Iceland, the Netherlands, or anyone else being bad. I said Iceland and the Czech Republic are not as good as Ghana, which is not the same thing -- unless you are saying that Ghana are bad. If so, that's on you. I am aware of these results. There are many other results worth knowing, too. Consider the England-Nigeria results, for instance. In the last half-decade, England have not been able to manage even a home draw with Nigeria. While England have not been able to achieve even a home draw Nigeria, however, more than one African side has drawn with or beaten the Nigerians. Ghana have won against Nigeria twice -- even once in Nigeria -- and have drawn twice more. Cameroon have drawn with them. Even Algeria -- who are not by any accounting even the fourth best team in Africa -- have beaten Nigeria. On the other hand, England have beaten Iceland every time they have hosted them. Even when Iceland hosted, they did no better than a draw. England also have a 4-1 home victory over the Czech Republic. It is these results and others of the same nature which make me suspect -- and I claim nothing more, having not seen South Africa and Cameroon -- that Iceland and the Czech Republic are not quite as good as the fourth best African side.
England did beat Nigeria in the World Cup, albeit in 1995. The other matches were friendlies. Perhaps Nigeria should be ranked higher - but the reason they are not is because they don't play enough high-ranked teams from other continents. Until they do, it is only possible to gauge their quality when the World Cup comes around. And perhaps Ghana would be ranked a lot higher than Iceland et al if they played more games against quality teams, other than Nigeria. I have no doubt that Ghana have the ability to beat Iceland or the Czech Republic. However, Ghana have not beaten France or China recently - Iceland have. So, I suppose - it may be an accident of opportunity that Iceland or the Czech Republic are rated higher than Ghana. The reason I thought the African 3rd and 4th place teams may be too weak is because of Nigeria's recent 5-0 and 4-0 demolitions of South Africa - traditionally thought of as the 3rd force in African women's football. However, as you rightly say, even Algeria have managed to beat Nigeria - although, this was proved to be a one-off in Nigeria's subsequent 6-0 and 5-0 victories over the same team. All-in-all, it is difficult to rank women's team outside of the top 10, as they play so few inter-confederational games. So, I am willing to admit I may be wrong in ranking African teams so lowly. But, like you say - bring on Cameroon v China And I agree that the FIFA ranking should not be taken to mean anything. They have proved that with their men's ranking also. I attempted to improve on the ranking myself with a computer program based on all women's matches played since the first in 1969 - but this gives me Nigeria in 23rd, Ghana in 26th, Cameroon in 34th and South Africa in 45th, with Mali and Algeria coming in at 54 and 55. Iceland and Czech Republic, at 19 and 20, are very close to Nigeria.